Recalling the idea of “Jesus on Trial,” we should note that the law does not allow a verdict to be presumed (hence, the methods in place for jury selection, jury sequestering, etc). The law dictates that the evidence should lead to the verdict. Throughout history, the witness has been the chief source of evidence, and such is the case with regards to the life of Jesus.
When witnesses are called, there are five basic tactics employed to impugn testimony:
1. Show evidence that the witness is not consistent in his/her testimony.
2. Show that the witness is biased.
3. Show that the witness is untrustworthy or deficient in character.
4. Show that the witness is/was under duress, under the influence of disease or drugs, or under the influence of some other agent.
5. Provide an alternative witness/explanation to counter the testimony.
Consistency
What we find in the synoptic gospels is a remarkable consistency with regards to the basic tenants of Jesus’ divinity. Some have called into question whether the gospel authors have been consistent on relatively minor details; however, it would require a willing blindness to dismiss the author’s claims of Jesus’ divinity. There is no doubt that Matthew, Mark, and Luke regard Jesus as a miracle worker, that they confirm Him as the messiah, and that they attest to the resurrection. Each is consistent internally and with one another.
Bias
I have heard the case before that the disciples and/or the authors were biased with regards to Jesus, and I don’t find the case to be particularly compelling. First, as I stated in an earlier post, unless the disciples believe Jesus to be the messiah, there is no eternal reward to be had. Second, if the disciples in fact did not witness the divine nature of Jesus, their “bias” would be based on a want to preserve the divine character of Jesus (who they would know to be a mere mortal) over their want to preserve themselves. In essence, they would have to willingly die for a lie… martyrdom with no eternal reward does not have the ring of truth.
The evidence, in fact, suggests that the disciples gave testimony in the face of mortal danger. The only way bias even enters the equation is if the disciples believe their claims to be true. Then, they would be “biased” to the truth.
Character
To my knowledge, there is no evidence that the disciples lacked character. They claim to have spent their lives trying to uphold the moral teachings of God Himself. I have yet to hear of a serious attack on the disciples’ character.
Mental Faculties
The gospel writings are clear and seemingly lucid accounts that do not serve to impugn the mental adeptness of the authors. There was ample reason for them to recant under tremendous pressure in the other direction, but not evidence that they were testifying under duress. The only real question here is whether the accounts were the child of faulty memory recall.
If we incorporate a little common sense, we know that a graduate assistant is a better source of information than a student who is new to the curriculum. As the professor draws on his assistant for help in developing the curriculum, grading papers, occasionally instructing a class, etc, the assistant develops a fuller comprehension of the materials. If the assistant then goes on to lecture himself and answers questions and critics along the way, the likelihood of forgetting the core of his studies continually decreases. This is what we see with the disciples.
"To teach is to learn twice." -Joseph Joubert
Further, there is a common misconception, it seems, that the disciples sat with Jesus for a few years then decided some 30-40 years later to put pen to paper or to dictate their experiences for posterity. The Bible teaches, however, that the disciples spent their lives preaching what Jesus taught them and meeting with one another to share knowledge and experiences. Consistent with what our common sense tells us, Elizabeth Loftus notes that repeated events will be remembered with greater accuracy and detail than one-time events. Our case study (the disciples) spent their lives retelling Jesus’ teachings over and over again.
The tendency is to extrapolate from the idea that memory recall is imperfect in order to question the historicity of the testimony in the New Testament. One example given was that perhaps the disciples’ inaccurate memory coupled with a strong willingness to believe in the divinity of Jesus led to confusing the empty tomb with a resurrected messiah. In essence, the disciples allowed themselves to be fooled into believing things they wished desperately were true. They allowed a legend of Jesus to creep into their minds and eventually believed the legend to be true. It is this legend that was recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
The theory is interesting, but I think it falls well short of explaining what the disciples preached as truth. The disciples didn’t just speak to an empty tomb and a resurrection. The gospels recount 40 days that the disciples spent with Jesus following his resurrection. That means there were 40 days of false memories that crept into the collective psyche of Jesus’ followers. Perhaps if the disciples were held in some kind of internment camp and fed false memories for a few years we might be witnessing the effects of some (really, really strange) psychological experiment. What is the evidence, though, that any oddity on the scope of what must have happened to the disciples ever occurred?
In the book of Acts (chapter 3), Peter performs a miracle of healing. By chapter 5, a couple who “lied [not] to men but to God” is stricken dead at the very words of Peter. Roger Clemens recently made popular the word “misremembered,” but what mis-remembrances account for Peter’s supernatural gifts? The claims of the New Testament are quite simply too extraordinary to have been the product of false memories. For one disciple to misremember the resurrection and the 40 days that followed would be astonishing. As we add more disciples and numerous additional miracles performed by Jesus and by the disciples themselves (it’s very important that this fact does not get lost), it is simply unfathomable that so very many people “oopsied” their way into Christianity.
As Marcus Stone notes, “A robbery or a theft is unlikely to mellow in the fullness of time into a donation of property. A rape will not be transformed into a romance. A vicious assault will probably not be converted into an accidental collision on the street.” Likewise, it is inconceivable that numerous devotees would recall Jesus’ ascension up a flight of stairs as ascension into the clouds or that the time he hung off the branch of His favorite tree as the crucifixion.
Over the course of a lifetime, you will almost certainly never make a claim on the scale of Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Any reasonable person should be skeptical and any reasonable person would reject the prima facie claims of the divinity of another without further evidence. But, when we surmise the evidence in the gospels, we find that there is extraordinary evidence that the disciples believed, that they were not the victims of faulty memories, and that testifying to the divinity of Jesus cannot have been in their own self interests.
Alternatives
When we read the few non-Biblical accounts written around the same time as the gospels, what we get is a picture of Jesus as a miracle-worker, though not necessarily a messiah. Seemingly all of the accounts written in the first couple of centuries acknowledge that there was something special about Jesus. To my knowledge, there are no reputable refutations of the gospels.
Conclusion
Any dismissal of the gospels demands a supposition that is incredibly difficult to reconcile. Did they misremember the most significant details of their lives? Were they duped into believing they could perform miracles? Did they die for a lie? None of these explanations seem plausible in a naturalistic worldview. Rather, it seems clear that the disciples believed their message (evidenced by their willingness to die), that the events they preached to were too remarkable to have been the product of faulty memory or trickery, and that they were able to provide evidence so convincing that thousands upon thousands of people willingly sacrificed their own lives rather than renounce Jesus. Perhaps a flippant dismissal of the gospels is tantamount to ignoring the evidence and instead presuming the verdict.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Extraordinary Evidence (Week 21)
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
- Marcello Truzzi
The Gospel of John represents quite a departure from the synoptic gospels, so prior to shifting gears, I want to examine the statement above which is often cited as justification for rejecting the gospels. Truzzi’s claim appears to be quite reasonable and I don’t think that many of us would bother to debate its merits. If you claim something extraordinary or peculiar, you should expect the claim to be challenged, and you should expect your challenger to require an overabundance of evidence as support. The difficulty with Truzzi’s statement, however, is that “extraordinary” is inherently subjective.
We have discussed mathematical probabilities in several of the previous posts; however, sometimes mathematical probabilities are not the only things that should be taken into account. If we were to encounter historical documentation that told of the whereabouts of Abraham Lincoln when he was shot, a reasonable person would not question the historicity of the account based on the mathematical probability. Let’s assume that the balcony was about 10 square yards. If there are 3,097,600 square yards in a square mile and approximately 30% of the Earth’s surface is land, the prima facie odds that Lincoln was in the balcony at a particular instance in history would be about a 1 in 5 X 10^-14. Still, how many of us doubt Lincoln’s whereabouts? If you were to examine a historical claim, you could cast immeasurable doubt on the claim via mathematical probability. Yet, we know that historical claims can and do supersede probabilities.
BACK TO SQUARE ONE
I tried to make it clear in my first several posts that to believe in things that are not of this universe is quite reasonable. You must look no further than the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy to know that natural law prohibits the manufacture of the elements of the universe (i.e. nothing that is confined to the laws of the universe could have caused the universe). Further, unless you have severe doubts regarding the merits of the scientific community, it is also exceedingly probable that the universe is not static (i.e. it had a beginning). From these two notions, you must conclude that some event or entity which is not confined to the laws of the universe resulted in the universe. Though several have questioned what this “catalyst” might be, there has been little debate as to the necessary existence of this catalyst.
I don’t plan to rehash these posts; rather, I want to include this paragraph as a reminder of where my definition of “supernatural” stems.
Supernatural: That which is not confined to the laws of the universe.
I’ll be discussing the evidentiary requirements for supernatural phenomena this week, so I want to ensure that we’re all on the same page when we discuss this topic and to remind each of you that by acknowledging the validity of the Big Bang, we are, in essence, acknowledging the existence of the supernatural.
RECAP
I. The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy governs those things that exist within the universe.
II. The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.
III. The Big Bang Theory coupled with the Theory of General Relativity (strongly supported by observable evidence) shows that the universe had a beginning.
IV. (From III) As matter and energy are elements of the universe, matter and energy had a beginning.
Because III/IV eliminates the possibility that matter and energy have always existed, the only reasonable explanation that remains is this:
There must exist (or there must have existed) something that is/was not governed by the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy which resulted in the existence of the universe. This thing would (by my definition above) be supernatural.
THE SUPERNATURAL EVENT?
The supernatural is real. The universe is proof. Still, for some there exists the notion that a natural explanation is always the most reasonable… no matter how unreasonable the naturalistic explanation might be. If you concede that supernatural is true (again, as evidenced by the truth of the existence of the universe), why would you make the assumption that it is likely there was only one supernatural event? If historical evidence points to a supernatural event, is it reasonable to dismiss the event solely because of its supernatural nature? Is it sufficient to simply manufacture a natural explanation that could explain a so-called supernatural phenomenon?
DUPED
As I outlined in the Matthew post, there is zero benefit for the gospel authors to write the gospels unless they believed them to be true. As such, this week I want to begin with the assumption that the synoptic gospel authors were truthful in their accounts, but that they were themselves duped by Jesus and/or the apostles. I will work to incorporate the most plausible explanations that do not require any supernatural explanation. Some blanket assumptions that are necessary if we assume no supernatural events:
1. God does not exist.
2. Jesus is not the Son of God.
3. Neither Jesus nor His disciples possessed the power to heal or any other supernatural abilities.
4. Jesus is dead and did not “conquer death.”
I have already spoken to the truth of Jesus’ existence, so I will begin here with the idea of Jesus the Deceiver. Whether Jesus truly believed Himself to be the Son of God, He was able to perform apparent miracles that were so great He succeeded in convincing 12 men (with the possible exception of Judas) to follow Him for a number of years and to believe that He was the Son of God. His numerous healings can of course be explained using one of two possibilities:
People in His employ feigned illness then feigned miraculous recovery from these illnesses. OR
He was able to convince unsuspecting folks that He did indeed heal people using cleverness and guile (perhaps he “healed” them then called attention elsewhere while the “healed” were ushered away a la Chevy Chase in Fletch).
The rest of His miracles must have simply been later fabrications from the disciples. In any case, his ruse was so convincing that the 12 believed Him to be the messiah… that is until he was killed. Following His death and unceremonious burial, a distraught Judas killed himself. The others decided that they would save face by telling everyone around them that they saw Him raised from the dead. The group of disciples traveled the countryside regaling crowds with stories of how they too could heal people and could even cause people to drop dead. They knew that if they could convince enough simpletons of these acts, the masses would tell others of what they swore they had seen with their own eyes. Their tales were so convincing that they even led Saul of Tarsus – a leading Christian-hunter – to believe that he had learned the entirety of the scriptures via a direct revelation from the risen Christ (Saul/Paul must have obviously read the accounts before, but his belief was so real that he remained convinced of the divine revelation). Paul was then responsible for a series of letters that served to give further credence to the words of the disciples.
Here’s where it gets tricky…
The disciples found themselves in a conundrum. Saul was not the only one who had been sent to round up the Christians. People were being killed and imprisoned and they were at the top of the list. The disciples were responsible for a multitude of deaths and theirs would be right around the corner. There was only one way out:
Admit to their collective lie and move somewhere else.
Sneak away under false identities and let those who believed them fend for themselves.
Continue to lie and make a pact with each other that each would not be the one to squeal.
This wasn’t an easy decision of course. After all, if a disciple was Jewish prior to Jesus coming to fetch him, he would have little doubt he was now destined for hell. The Gentiles of the group had a little easier time… until they were caught and sentenced to death. Each went about his business watching fellow “Christians” die horrible, painful deaths. So, naturally, the horribly sadistic disciples decided to continue to preach and to recruit more Christians. After all, what did it matter at this point?
In Week 17, I recapped several of the attestations of the disciples via the gospels:
1. They attested to knowing Jesus first-hand.
2. They attested to witnessing and performing first-hand miracles.
3. They attested to seeing Jesus die.
4. They attested to seeing Jesus alive three days later.
We can effectively throw out #1. After all, if He wasn’t really a miracle-working messiah, the disciples didn’t know Jesus at all. Obviously, they were deluding themselves when it comes to #2. Tales of walking on water and resurrections were flat-out lies and, in retrospect, none of the healings could have been real (Gosh, I thought I saw the same guy get healed for blindness, leprosy, and gout in three different places… I really should have put two and two together then). The only one that was really truthful was #3.
The truly amazing part is that the disciples managed to confound the masses so thoroughly without ever producing a true miracle that thousands upon thousands were willing to give their lives… martyrdom soon became a fun little pastime for the early Christians and they were even allowed to be center stage in the Colosseum. Sure, there were plenty of other religions that promoted orgies and drinking, but how often does one get to be eaten, gored, or trampled in front of thousands of people by really cool wild animals?! Though no one they knew had ever really seen the disciples do anything beyond heal a headache or put some aloe on a sunburn, soon the masses were lining up to profess their collective faith, give up those despicable activities, and await their eminent deaths.
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS
If we don’t dismiss the supernatural straight away, there is simply no reason to contest the claims made in the gospels. The claim that supernatural events are rare and thus wholly unlikely is one that stems from not having directly experienced the supernatural. It’s almost like we’re caught in a loop:
We can’t believe in the supernatural because it is so very rare; yet, there are a plethora of supernatural events recorded in the Bible and tons more reported by people from all over the globe. Still, each event is so unlikely because the supernatural is so rare…
Further, if the events were ordinary, we would simply say that God was not needed to perform them. If, for instance, people were resurrected daily, a resurrection would simply be considered a regular, natural phenomenon. Doubt, in this case, often stems from doubt.
If we look at the New Testament as we would any other historical document, there is little doubt that each of the principle players believed in the divinity of Jesus. So, what is it that sets Christianity apart? Let’s revisit the core premises discussed over the last few weeks:
Virgin Birth
Miracles
Adherence to Scripture
Authority as Son of God
Great Commission
Prophecies
Crucifixion
Resurrection
(Add to this the fact that the disciples themselves were responsible for performing miracles after Jesus’ death.)
The claims made in the gospel writings are indeed extraordinary. To believe these claims, the early eyewitnesses would have almost certainly required extraordinary evidence. Modern Christianity relies upon documentary evidence written within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses of Christ… those who were the very founders of the early church. The membership of the early church is extraordinary. The sheer number of authors and the recreation of their accounts are extraordinary. The historical accuracy of the accounts is extraordinary. In fact, there is very little that can be called ordinary with regards to the church of the first century.
The actions of the disciples, too, are extraordinary. It is extraordinarily difficult to believe that one man could be so obstinate as to die for a lie… much less the plethora of Christian martyrs who were killed shortly after the death of Christ. Jesus and the disciples were visible. Their claims were verifiable. It is more likely that the early Christians were so very devoted because they had seen the evidence with their own eyes or because they were very close to others who witnessed the events directly.
It is perhaps even more difficult to believe that the disciples could literally believe that they had the ability to perform miracles if this was not the case. Certainly such a delusion would not beget the massive early Christian church. If the disciples merely believed they had supernatural powers, this wouldn’t translate to the masses.
A Physics professor I once had used to implore us to ask a simple question after we answered a problem: Does this make sense? For instance, if the question asked for the height of a building and your answer was given in light years, it would behoove you to check your work (probably didn’t need to divide by Planck’s constant). Does it make sense that the disciples died (sometimes torturous deaths) for a lie? Does it make sense that the disciples had no real power, but were able to convince thousands upon thousands to turn away from comfortable lives as citizens of the Roman Empire and give their lives to Christ? The realities of our universe necessitate the probability of the supernatural. The probability of the supernatural necessitates the possibility of God. The possibility of God helps us to understand the stories of the New Testament. If you don’t blind yourself to that which you already know (there is something beyond our universe), the supernatural ceases to be a weak explanation by the ignorant faithful and becomes a valid explanation from the early eyewitnesses.
- Marcello Truzzi
The Gospel of John represents quite a departure from the synoptic gospels, so prior to shifting gears, I want to examine the statement above which is often cited as justification for rejecting the gospels. Truzzi’s claim appears to be quite reasonable and I don’t think that many of us would bother to debate its merits. If you claim something extraordinary or peculiar, you should expect the claim to be challenged, and you should expect your challenger to require an overabundance of evidence as support. The difficulty with Truzzi’s statement, however, is that “extraordinary” is inherently subjective.
We have discussed mathematical probabilities in several of the previous posts; however, sometimes mathematical probabilities are not the only things that should be taken into account. If we were to encounter historical documentation that told of the whereabouts of Abraham Lincoln when he was shot, a reasonable person would not question the historicity of the account based on the mathematical probability. Let’s assume that the balcony was about 10 square yards. If there are 3,097,600 square yards in a square mile and approximately 30% of the Earth’s surface is land, the prima facie odds that Lincoln was in the balcony at a particular instance in history would be about a 1 in 5 X 10^-14. Still, how many of us doubt Lincoln’s whereabouts? If you were to examine a historical claim, you could cast immeasurable doubt on the claim via mathematical probability. Yet, we know that historical claims can and do supersede probabilities.
BACK TO SQUARE ONE
I tried to make it clear in my first several posts that to believe in things that are not of this universe is quite reasonable. You must look no further than the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy to know that natural law prohibits the manufacture of the elements of the universe (i.e. nothing that is confined to the laws of the universe could have caused the universe). Further, unless you have severe doubts regarding the merits of the scientific community, it is also exceedingly probable that the universe is not static (i.e. it had a beginning). From these two notions, you must conclude that some event or entity which is not confined to the laws of the universe resulted in the universe. Though several have questioned what this “catalyst” might be, there has been little debate as to the necessary existence of this catalyst.
I don’t plan to rehash these posts; rather, I want to include this paragraph as a reminder of where my definition of “supernatural” stems.
Supernatural: That which is not confined to the laws of the universe.
I’ll be discussing the evidentiary requirements for supernatural phenomena this week, so I want to ensure that we’re all on the same page when we discuss this topic and to remind each of you that by acknowledging the validity of the Big Bang, we are, in essence, acknowledging the existence of the supernatural.
RECAP
I. The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy governs those things that exist within the universe.
II. The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.
III. The Big Bang Theory coupled with the Theory of General Relativity (strongly supported by observable evidence) shows that the universe had a beginning.
IV. (From III) As matter and energy are elements of the universe, matter and energy had a beginning.
Because III/IV eliminates the possibility that matter and energy have always existed, the only reasonable explanation that remains is this:
There must exist (or there must have existed) something that is/was not governed by the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy which resulted in the existence of the universe. This thing would (by my definition above) be supernatural.
THE SUPERNATURAL EVENT?
The supernatural is real. The universe is proof. Still, for some there exists the notion that a natural explanation is always the most reasonable… no matter how unreasonable the naturalistic explanation might be. If you concede that supernatural is true (again, as evidenced by the truth of the existence of the universe), why would you make the assumption that it is likely there was only one supernatural event? If historical evidence points to a supernatural event, is it reasonable to dismiss the event solely because of its supernatural nature? Is it sufficient to simply manufacture a natural explanation that could explain a so-called supernatural phenomenon?
DUPED
As I outlined in the Matthew post, there is zero benefit for the gospel authors to write the gospels unless they believed them to be true. As such, this week I want to begin with the assumption that the synoptic gospel authors were truthful in their accounts, but that they were themselves duped by Jesus and/or the apostles. I will work to incorporate the most plausible explanations that do not require any supernatural explanation. Some blanket assumptions that are necessary if we assume no supernatural events:
1. God does not exist.
2. Jesus is not the Son of God.
3. Neither Jesus nor His disciples possessed the power to heal or any other supernatural abilities.
4. Jesus is dead and did not “conquer death.”
I have already spoken to the truth of Jesus’ existence, so I will begin here with the idea of Jesus the Deceiver. Whether Jesus truly believed Himself to be the Son of God, He was able to perform apparent miracles that were so great He succeeded in convincing 12 men (with the possible exception of Judas) to follow Him for a number of years and to believe that He was the Son of God. His numerous healings can of course be explained using one of two possibilities:
People in His employ feigned illness then feigned miraculous recovery from these illnesses. OR
He was able to convince unsuspecting folks that He did indeed heal people using cleverness and guile (perhaps he “healed” them then called attention elsewhere while the “healed” were ushered away a la Chevy Chase in Fletch).
The rest of His miracles must have simply been later fabrications from the disciples. In any case, his ruse was so convincing that the 12 believed Him to be the messiah… that is until he was killed. Following His death and unceremonious burial, a distraught Judas killed himself. The others decided that they would save face by telling everyone around them that they saw Him raised from the dead. The group of disciples traveled the countryside regaling crowds with stories of how they too could heal people and could even cause people to drop dead. They knew that if they could convince enough simpletons of these acts, the masses would tell others of what they swore they had seen with their own eyes. Their tales were so convincing that they even led Saul of Tarsus – a leading Christian-hunter – to believe that he had learned the entirety of the scriptures via a direct revelation from the risen Christ (Saul/Paul must have obviously read the accounts before, but his belief was so real that he remained convinced of the divine revelation). Paul was then responsible for a series of letters that served to give further credence to the words of the disciples.
Here’s where it gets tricky…
The disciples found themselves in a conundrum. Saul was not the only one who had been sent to round up the Christians. People were being killed and imprisoned and they were at the top of the list. The disciples were responsible for a multitude of deaths and theirs would be right around the corner. There was only one way out:
Continue to lie and make a pact with each other that each would not be the one to squeal.
This wasn’t an easy decision of course. After all, if a disciple was Jewish prior to Jesus coming to fetch him, he would have little doubt he was now destined for hell. The Gentiles of the group had a little easier time… until they were caught and sentenced to death. Each went about his business watching fellow “Christians” die horrible, painful deaths. So, naturally, the horribly sadistic disciples decided to continue to preach and to recruit more Christians. After all, what did it matter at this point?
In Week 17, I recapped several of the attestations of the disciples via the gospels:
1. They attested to knowing Jesus first-hand.
2. They attested to witnessing and performing first-hand miracles.
3. They attested to seeing Jesus die.
4. They attested to seeing Jesus alive three days later.
We can effectively throw out #1. After all, if He wasn’t really a miracle-working messiah, the disciples didn’t know Jesus at all. Obviously, they were deluding themselves when it comes to #2. Tales of walking on water and resurrections were flat-out lies and, in retrospect, none of the healings could have been real (Gosh, I thought I saw the same guy get healed for blindness, leprosy, and gout in three different places… I really should have put two and two together then). The only one that was really truthful was #3.
The truly amazing part is that the disciples managed to confound the masses so thoroughly without ever producing a true miracle that thousands upon thousands were willing to give their lives… martyrdom soon became a fun little pastime for the early Christians and they were even allowed to be center stage in the Colosseum. Sure, there were plenty of other religions that promoted orgies and drinking, but how often does one get to be eaten, gored, or trampled in front of thousands of people by really cool wild animals?! Though no one they knew had ever really seen the disciples do anything beyond heal a headache or put some aloe on a sunburn, soon the masses were lining up to profess their collective faith, give up those despicable activities, and await their eminent deaths.
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS
If we don’t dismiss the supernatural straight away, there is simply no reason to contest the claims made in the gospels. The claim that supernatural events are rare and thus wholly unlikely is one that stems from not having directly experienced the supernatural. It’s almost like we’re caught in a loop:
We can’t believe in the supernatural because it is so very rare; yet, there are a plethora of supernatural events recorded in the Bible and tons more reported by people from all over the globe. Still, each event is so unlikely because the supernatural is so rare…
Further, if the events were ordinary, we would simply say that God was not needed to perform them. If, for instance, people were resurrected daily, a resurrection would simply be considered a regular, natural phenomenon. Doubt, in this case, often stems from doubt.
If we look at the New Testament as we would any other historical document, there is little doubt that each of the principle players believed in the divinity of Jesus. So, what is it that sets Christianity apart? Let’s revisit the core premises discussed over the last few weeks:
Virgin Birth
Miracles
Adherence to Scripture
Authority as Son of God
Great Commission
Prophecies
Crucifixion
Resurrection
(Add to this the fact that the disciples themselves were responsible for performing miracles after Jesus’ death.)
The claims made in the gospel writings are indeed extraordinary. To believe these claims, the early eyewitnesses would have almost certainly required extraordinary evidence. Modern Christianity relies upon documentary evidence written within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses of Christ… those who were the very founders of the early church. The membership of the early church is extraordinary. The sheer number of authors and the recreation of their accounts are extraordinary. The historical accuracy of the accounts is extraordinary. In fact, there is very little that can be called ordinary with regards to the church of the first century.
The actions of the disciples, too, are extraordinary. It is extraordinarily difficult to believe that one man could be so obstinate as to die for a lie… much less the plethora of Christian martyrs who were killed shortly after the death of Christ. Jesus and the disciples were visible. Their claims were verifiable. It is more likely that the early Christians were so very devoted because they had seen the evidence with their own eyes or because they were very close to others who witnessed the events directly.
It is perhaps even more difficult to believe that the disciples could literally believe that they had the ability to perform miracles if this was not the case. Certainly such a delusion would not beget the massive early Christian church. If the disciples merely believed they had supernatural powers, this wouldn’t translate to the masses.
A Physics professor I once had used to implore us to ask a simple question after we answered a problem: Does this make sense? For instance, if the question asked for the height of a building and your answer was given in light years, it would behoove you to check your work (probably didn’t need to divide by Planck’s constant). Does it make sense that the disciples died (sometimes torturous deaths) for a lie? Does it make sense that the disciples had no real power, but were able to convince thousands upon thousands to turn away from comfortable lives as citizens of the Roman Empire and give their lives to Christ? The realities of our universe necessitate the probability of the supernatural. The probability of the supernatural necessitates the possibility of God. The possibility of God helps us to understand the stories of the New Testament. If you don’t blind yourself to that which you already know (there is something beyond our universe), the supernatural ceases to be a weak explanation by the ignorant faithful and becomes a valid explanation from the early eyewitnesses.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Luke (Week 20)
Sometimes life happens. A sort of “perfect storm” of energy-sapping events struck me in June and the idea of “free time” has been completely foreign to me for the last month or so. I do intend, however, to redouble my efforts, so I hope you’re ready for the 52 Blogs lighting round as I have no intention of turning this into a year-and-a-half-long venture. I apologize to everyone who has been on pins and needles awaiting my next post (mom?). In all seriousness, though, I could never have anticipated that writing this blog would be as demanding as it has turned out to be. Leaving it to “free time” is a disservice to my readership and I am truly sorry that my level of commitment has not been what it should be. With that, I’m ready to jump to Gospel #3. I hope you’re equally ready to question every nuance in the Comments section. I would be disappointed otherwise.
As a student of history, I have a certain partiality to Luke. His writing style and level of detail makes his gospel (as well as the book of Acts) a rarity. Unlike Mark and Matthew, Luke gives us some insight on his reasons for documenting the life of Christ:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
From the introduction, it would seem that Luke has been commissioned to investigate the stories found in Mark and elsewhere and to piece together his own account of Jesus’ life and death.
In the Book of Acts, Luke mentions specifically being a companion of Paul and James and interacts with the “elders” on more than one occasion. He also mentions in his prologue that he interviewed those who “from the first were eyewitnesses.” So, it is reasonable to believe that Luke’s works would accord with the stories of his interviewees, who were themselves followers of Christ. Luke should be viewed, I think, as a biographer. He is the first to cite his sources (though indirectly) and only adds to the claims of Mark and Matthew.
DATE
As with the other gospels, there is no original manuscript of the gospel of Luke; still, the gospel can be dated to within the first century and the reported accounts must have taken place during the lifetimes of eyewitnesses. Because Luke authored both his gospel and Acts, it is easier to assign a date to Luke. Luke speaks in the first person and provides great detail throughout both books. In Acts 21, we need only note that he was accompanied by both Paul and James; thus, the events he witnessed and the eyewitnesses he knew must have been encountered prior to the martyrdom of Paul or James (c. 62 CE).
When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
As support of the notion that Luke authored the accounts before 62 CE, it should be noted that Luke ends not with Paul’s martyrdom, but with his imprisonment. He certainly thought it noteworthy to detail many events in Paul’s life, but neglected to mention his death. A reasonable conclusion would be that Luke finished his work before Paul’s demise. Regardless of when the book was penned, however, Luke was certainly in the company of one eyewitness (James) and likely several others (as we know that Paul met with Peter, John, and others while Luke kept his company and Luke references the “elders”). So, he interacted directly with Jesus’ disciples only twenty-something years after Jesus’ death. As far as sources from antiquity go, Luke is easily among the most credentialed.
ADHERENCE
It should not be surprising that Matthew, Mark, and Luke report similar stories and truths about Jesus. In the early church, the disciples would benefit greatly by preaching a congruent message. What this tells us about the synoptic gospels is that each almost certainly had access to the earliest writings of the church and that each was able to consult with the church founders (i.e. the disciples). It tells us, too, that it was important to the church leaders that the accounts remain steadfast. Each of the synoptic gospels emphasizes different elements of Jesus’ teachings, but each of the three corroborates the key elements of Jesus’ life (though, again, the focus of Mark is limited in comparison):
Virgin Birth
Miracles
Adherence to Scripture
Authority as Son of God
Great Commission
Prophecies
Crucifixion
Resurrection
Where Mark gave the least detail (likely a result of being the earliest work), Luke is very explicit in his descriptions and delves more into Jesus’ messages of sacrifice and inclusion. He also makes note of times, places, and events in such a way that his descriptions are largely verifiable through archeological and historical means. The meticulous manner in which Luke documents so many details lends even further credence to his work.
DIFFICULTIES
If we look upon the gospel authors as men making an earnest attempt to accurately record history, there is little reason to doubt the validity of each author’s story. What we see with the first three gospels is that each gives an account for a specific audience. Details recorded by one may be left out by another, but nowhere in the gospels do we find contradictions regarding the “key elements” noted above. Debates centering around whether Jesus stood or sat during the Sermon on the Mount only serve to explicate the harmonious nature of the gospels (i.e. the arguments focus on the minutiae).
For this blog, I’m making no claim that the gospel works are divinely inspired. It’s simply too easy to lose oneself in an argument that really does not matter in the grand scheme. If the authors are telling the truth, but are found to have erred when reporting on the color of Jesus’ tunic, the accounts do not suffer. That being said, there must certainly be a threshold for errors associated with “minor details” that should cause pause. Since I’m uncertain as to what this threshold is, I plan to continue to address difficulties presented in the New Testament. I hope that in the end, though, you don’t attempt to “throw the baby out with the bath water” (i.e. toss aside the entirety of the Bible because you’re uncertain whether the soldiers who accompanied Saul on the road to Damascus could “hear” God). On with the fun stuff…
GENEALOGY
Matthew and Luke give different genealogies in reference to Jesus.
Luke’s first reference in the lineage of Jesus tells us that Joseph was the son of Heli. Some have referenced the Talmud to illustrate that the text provides evidence that Mary is indeed the daughter of Heli, and thus Luke was speaking about Heli’s son-in-law Joseph to begin his own version of Jesus’ lineage. From this, it is reasonable to conclude that Luke is referencing the lineage of Mary whereas Matthew references the lineage of Joseph. It seems such a trivial matter for Luke to be able to confirm the identity of Jesus’ grandfather that I doubt sincerely that he blundered right out of the gate. The explanation of Luke tracing Jesus’ genealogy through Mary seems to be the most plausible.
CENSUS
Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius. There is a historical record of Quirinius reign beginning around 6CE, so Luke must have been off by a decade or more.
Luke maintains a splendid record of historical rulers. He tracks the dates of antiquity by referencing those in power, since there was no universal western calendar. Because of this, it is relatively easy to verify/dispute Luke’s claims using extra-Biblical texts. One such classic example of a supposed error can be found in Luke 3:
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness.
Skeptics claimed that Luke was horribly mistaken in his dating as Lysanias was known to have been executed by order of Marc Antony 50-60 years before. A later archeological finding, however, vindicated Luke when an inscription was discovered on a temple from the time of Tiberius that explicitly named Lysanias in exactly the timeframe described by Luke. Luke’s descriptions of people, places, and titles have been verified with remarkable accuracy.
As a matter of reference in regards to the census, there existed two bronze plaques outside of the mausoleum of Augustus Caesar that list the “Acts of Augustus” – the emperor’s own list of his 35 greatest achievements. Among these, Caesar lauds his three empire-wide censuses, one of which was begun in 8 B.C. As you can imagine, such censuses took some time to complete (and it is likely that Bethlehem was not priority one), so we find that Jesus’ date of birth would almost certainly fit into the timeframe of the census. So, history supports the notion that Jesus was born whilst a census was being conducted.
Assuming that Luke was simply mistaken with regards to the census when his dates and accounts are otherwise meticulous and accurate is likely incorrect. There are three very valid explanations for this oft-referenced “discrepancy”:
1. Quirinius was a respected military leader during the time of the census. He headed a campaign in the region against the Hemonadensians while Syria was being ruled by an incompetent governor (Varus). Caesar entrusted the task of a census to Quirinius rather than to Varus, thus superseding Varus’ authority.
2. There exists an inscription that was discovered in Trivoli in 1764 which says that the governor of Syria had twice been the governor. The inscription does not name the governor, but some scholars have proposed that Quirinius may well have been appointed as a secondary governor during his campaign against the Hemonadensians.
3. The simplest explanation is simply that the Greek word “prote” can be translated in one of two ways, yielding the alternative translation: “This census was before Quirinius was governor of Syria.”
Oh, and – as noted above – Luke knew Jesus’ brother. There is an ever-so-slight possibility that James could have corrected him were he truly off by over a decade. It seems that the greater likelihood is that Luke was right, but limited sources have left him as-of-yet uncorroborated.
BIRTH STORIES
Luke leaves out the details regarding the family’s flight to Egypt and the events prompting the exodus.
I read a few possible explanations for this, but the only thing that truly matters is this: A lack of detail is simply not a contradiction. The exodus to Egypt strikes a parallel to the Old Testament story that chronicles the enslavement of the Israelites. Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, went out of his way to draw parallels between the Old Testament and the New. The parallel here should not be surprising. Luke may have simply omitted the story. The chronology, however, remains intact.
JESUS’ LAST MOMENTS ON THE CROSS
Matthew says that “Jesus cried out.” Luke cites Jesus as having said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit.” John tells us that Jesus said simply, “It is finished.”
Each of the gospel authors gives writes a different description of what is often called “Jesus’ last words.” Each of these descriptions, however, accord well with one another, even if they are not verbatim. During this period of history, quotations simply did not exist. Jesus’ words may well serve the literary function of bringing the crucifixion story to a close or they may simply be alternative ways of bringing the same message: Jesus spoke His last. In either case, there is no contradictory message. Jesus spoke/cried a message of finality then He died.
THE TOMB
Matthew
Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” visit the tomb.
There is an earthquake that causes the guards great fear.
One angel appears atop the stone and instructs the women to tell the disciples of the resurrection.
Jesus appears to the women after they have left the tomb and tells them that He will visit the disciples in Galilee.
Jesus visits the disciples in Galilee.
Mark
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome visit the tomb.
The stone “had been rolled away.”
One angel (who they see as they enter the tomb) instructs the women to tell the disciples of the resurrection.
Luke
“The women” visited the tomb.
They found the stone rolled away.
Two angels tell them of Jesus’ resurrection.
Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Joanna, and “others” tell the disciples of the resurrection.
Peter verifies that Jesus is not there.
Jesus visits two men then vanishes after they recognize Him.
Jesus visits the disciples (Luke does not name the location).
Details following the resurrection vary in descriptiveness.
Hopefully, since none of the stories mention the number of women who visited the tomb, the names of the women will not be too terribly appalling to anyone. Each refers to the Mary’s. Luke makes it clear that several others were with the twosome and Mark and Luke each refers to one additional participant by name. A likely explanation is that each chose to name the women with whom they were familiar.
Matthew specifically mentions the guards, whereas the others do not. The others may have simply written under the assumption that their audience would know that the guards were present or simply would not care about a detail that is certainly rendered minor in comparison to the resurrection. In either case, such a detail does not a contradiction make.
Where the stories seem to diverge is in the descriptions of the angel/angels. Part of what I enjoy when reading the gospels is the fact that each has access to very similar sources, but each reports the stories with different details. For example, though Luke almost certainly had access to Mark and reiterated Mark’s descriptions throughout, he reports as fact that two angels were present at the tomb whereas Mark reports only one. Why? The most plausible explanation is that Luke heard and believed reports that two angels were present. Hence, we can conclude that he was earnest in his attempts to relay the story of Jesus. It would be much easier to simply copy Mark’s account.
Is one account wrong? Adherents to the idea of a divinely-inspired scripture would likely point out that Matthew and Mark wrote of one angel who spoke, but did not say that only one was present. Others have hypothesized that the visitors to the tomb may have come at different times. For our purposes, it’s easier to acknowledge the possibility of discrepancies in the texts, since such discrepancies simply would not detract from the story. Certainly the presence of one or two angels is a minor detail in comparison to the major detail of the resurrection.
In the end, the possible discrepancies are so minor and so few that the three synoptic gospels yield a very clear picture of Jesus. Luke is explicit that his sources are second only to Christ Himself and Matthew and Mark corroborate fully Luke’s description of Jesus. The variances in style and details are such that collusion is unlikely. Yes, Matthew and Luke incorporate a large bit of Mark’s gospel into their own works, but each adds a great deal to his own gospel that cannot be attributed to Mark. We’re left with three different sources that tell the same story.
FINAL THOUGHT
I want to reiterate the point that the gospel authors had absolutely nothing to gain by concocting a story of the Christ. Further, the gospels were written years after the death of Christ. The church had already begun. The leaders were already established. From the preservation and spread of the gospels themselves, we can surmise that the early church supported the teachings documented by the synoptic gospel authors. This support should not be taken lightly. If indeed there were multitudinous eyewitnesses as the New Testament describes (and the population of the early church seems to corroborate), written accounts contrary to the actual teachings of the disciples would almost certainly die out as quickly as they were composed. The works that were circulated and mass-produced into the second and third centuries were evidently widely considered to be truthful accounts of Christ. One can still debate whether the ignorant hoards were corrupted by the “false teachings” of the disciples, but I think it is fair to say that the synoptic gospels paint a very clear picture of what the early Christians truly believed.
As a student of history, I have a certain partiality to Luke. His writing style and level of detail makes his gospel (as well as the book of Acts) a rarity. Unlike Mark and Matthew, Luke gives us some insight on his reasons for documenting the life of Christ:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
From the introduction, it would seem that Luke has been commissioned to investigate the stories found in Mark and elsewhere and to piece together his own account of Jesus’ life and death.
In the Book of Acts, Luke mentions specifically being a companion of Paul and James and interacts with the “elders” on more than one occasion. He also mentions in his prologue that he interviewed those who “from the first were eyewitnesses.” So, it is reasonable to believe that Luke’s works would accord with the stories of his interviewees, who were themselves followers of Christ. Luke should be viewed, I think, as a biographer. He is the first to cite his sources (though indirectly) and only adds to the claims of Mark and Matthew.
DATE
As with the other gospels, there is no original manuscript of the gospel of Luke; still, the gospel can be dated to within the first century and the reported accounts must have taken place during the lifetimes of eyewitnesses. Because Luke authored both his gospel and Acts, it is easier to assign a date to Luke. Luke speaks in the first person and provides great detail throughout both books. In Acts 21, we need only note that he was accompanied by both Paul and James; thus, the events he witnessed and the eyewitnesses he knew must have been encountered prior to the martyrdom of Paul or James (c. 62 CE).
When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
As support of the notion that Luke authored the accounts before 62 CE, it should be noted that Luke ends not with Paul’s martyrdom, but with his imprisonment. He certainly thought it noteworthy to detail many events in Paul’s life, but neglected to mention his death. A reasonable conclusion would be that Luke finished his work before Paul’s demise. Regardless of when the book was penned, however, Luke was certainly in the company of one eyewitness (James) and likely several others (as we know that Paul met with Peter, John, and others while Luke kept his company and Luke references the “elders”). So, he interacted directly with Jesus’ disciples only twenty-something years after Jesus’ death. As far as sources from antiquity go, Luke is easily among the most credentialed.
ADHERENCE
It should not be surprising that Matthew, Mark, and Luke report similar stories and truths about Jesus. In the early church, the disciples would benefit greatly by preaching a congruent message. What this tells us about the synoptic gospels is that each almost certainly had access to the earliest writings of the church and that each was able to consult with the church founders (i.e. the disciples). It tells us, too, that it was important to the church leaders that the accounts remain steadfast. Each of the synoptic gospels emphasizes different elements of Jesus’ teachings, but each of the three corroborates the key elements of Jesus’ life (though, again, the focus of Mark is limited in comparison):
Virgin Birth
Miracles
Adherence to Scripture
Authority as Son of God
Great Commission
Prophecies
Crucifixion
Resurrection
Where Mark gave the least detail (likely a result of being the earliest work), Luke is very explicit in his descriptions and delves more into Jesus’ messages of sacrifice and inclusion. He also makes note of times, places, and events in such a way that his descriptions are largely verifiable through archeological and historical means. The meticulous manner in which Luke documents so many details lends even further credence to his work.
DIFFICULTIES
If we look upon the gospel authors as men making an earnest attempt to accurately record history, there is little reason to doubt the validity of each author’s story. What we see with the first three gospels is that each gives an account for a specific audience. Details recorded by one may be left out by another, but nowhere in the gospels do we find contradictions regarding the “key elements” noted above. Debates centering around whether Jesus stood or sat during the Sermon on the Mount only serve to explicate the harmonious nature of the gospels (i.e. the arguments focus on the minutiae).
For this blog, I’m making no claim that the gospel works are divinely inspired. It’s simply too easy to lose oneself in an argument that really does not matter in the grand scheme. If the authors are telling the truth, but are found to have erred when reporting on the color of Jesus’ tunic, the accounts do not suffer. That being said, there must certainly be a threshold for errors associated with “minor details” that should cause pause. Since I’m uncertain as to what this threshold is, I plan to continue to address difficulties presented in the New Testament. I hope that in the end, though, you don’t attempt to “throw the baby out with the bath water” (i.e. toss aside the entirety of the Bible because you’re uncertain whether the soldiers who accompanied Saul on the road to Damascus could “hear” God). On with the fun stuff…
GENEALOGY
Matthew and Luke give different genealogies in reference to Jesus.
Luke’s first reference in the lineage of Jesus tells us that Joseph was the son of Heli. Some have referenced the Talmud to illustrate that the text provides evidence that Mary is indeed the daughter of Heli, and thus Luke was speaking about Heli’s son-in-law Joseph to begin his own version of Jesus’ lineage. From this, it is reasonable to conclude that Luke is referencing the lineage of Mary whereas Matthew references the lineage of Joseph. It seems such a trivial matter for Luke to be able to confirm the identity of Jesus’ grandfather that I doubt sincerely that he blundered right out of the gate. The explanation of Luke tracing Jesus’ genealogy through Mary seems to be the most plausible.
CENSUS
Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius. There is a historical record of Quirinius reign beginning around 6CE, so Luke must have been off by a decade or more.
Luke maintains a splendid record of historical rulers. He tracks the dates of antiquity by referencing those in power, since there was no universal western calendar. Because of this, it is relatively easy to verify/dispute Luke’s claims using extra-Biblical texts. One such classic example of a supposed error can be found in Luke 3:
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness.
Skeptics claimed that Luke was horribly mistaken in his dating as Lysanias was known to have been executed by order of Marc Antony 50-60 years before. A later archeological finding, however, vindicated Luke when an inscription was discovered on a temple from the time of Tiberius that explicitly named Lysanias in exactly the timeframe described by Luke. Luke’s descriptions of people, places, and titles have been verified with remarkable accuracy.
As a matter of reference in regards to the census, there existed two bronze plaques outside of the mausoleum of Augustus Caesar that list the “Acts of Augustus” – the emperor’s own list of his 35 greatest achievements. Among these, Caesar lauds his three empire-wide censuses, one of which was begun in 8 B.C. As you can imagine, such censuses took some time to complete (and it is likely that Bethlehem was not priority one), so we find that Jesus’ date of birth would almost certainly fit into the timeframe of the census. So, history supports the notion that Jesus was born whilst a census was being conducted.
Assuming that Luke was simply mistaken with regards to the census when his dates and accounts are otherwise meticulous and accurate is likely incorrect. There are three very valid explanations for this oft-referenced “discrepancy”:
1. Quirinius was a respected military leader during the time of the census. He headed a campaign in the region against the Hemonadensians while Syria was being ruled by an incompetent governor (Varus). Caesar entrusted the task of a census to Quirinius rather than to Varus, thus superseding Varus’ authority.
2. There exists an inscription that was discovered in Trivoli in 1764 which says that the governor of Syria had twice been the governor. The inscription does not name the governor, but some scholars have proposed that Quirinius may well have been appointed as a secondary governor during his campaign against the Hemonadensians.
3. The simplest explanation is simply that the Greek word “prote” can be translated in one of two ways, yielding the alternative translation: “This census was before Quirinius was governor of Syria.”
Oh, and – as noted above – Luke knew Jesus’ brother. There is an ever-so-slight possibility that James could have corrected him were he truly off by over a decade. It seems that the greater likelihood is that Luke was right, but limited sources have left him as-of-yet uncorroborated.
BIRTH STORIES
Luke leaves out the details regarding the family’s flight to Egypt and the events prompting the exodus.
I read a few possible explanations for this, but the only thing that truly matters is this: A lack of detail is simply not a contradiction. The exodus to Egypt strikes a parallel to the Old Testament story that chronicles the enslavement of the Israelites. Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, went out of his way to draw parallels between the Old Testament and the New. The parallel here should not be surprising. Luke may have simply omitted the story. The chronology, however, remains intact.
JESUS’ LAST MOMENTS ON THE CROSS
Matthew says that “Jesus cried out.” Luke cites Jesus as having said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit.” John tells us that Jesus said simply, “It is finished.”
Each of the gospel authors gives writes a different description of what is often called “Jesus’ last words.” Each of these descriptions, however, accord well with one another, even if they are not verbatim. During this period of history, quotations simply did not exist. Jesus’ words may well serve the literary function of bringing the crucifixion story to a close or they may simply be alternative ways of bringing the same message: Jesus spoke His last. In either case, there is no contradictory message. Jesus spoke/cried a message of finality then He died.
THE TOMB
Matthew
Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” visit the tomb.
There is an earthquake that causes the guards great fear.
One angel appears atop the stone and instructs the women to tell the disciples of the resurrection.
Jesus appears to the women after they have left the tomb and tells them that He will visit the disciples in Galilee.
Jesus visits the disciples in Galilee.
Mark
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome visit the tomb.
The stone “had been rolled away.”
One angel (who they see as they enter the tomb) instructs the women to tell the disciples of the resurrection.
Luke
“The women” visited the tomb.
They found the stone rolled away.
Two angels tell them of Jesus’ resurrection.
Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Joanna, and “others” tell the disciples of the resurrection.
Peter verifies that Jesus is not there.
Jesus visits two men then vanishes after they recognize Him.
Jesus visits the disciples (Luke does not name the location).
Details following the resurrection vary in descriptiveness.
Hopefully, since none of the stories mention the number of women who visited the tomb, the names of the women will not be too terribly appalling to anyone. Each refers to the Mary’s. Luke makes it clear that several others were with the twosome and Mark and Luke each refers to one additional participant by name. A likely explanation is that each chose to name the women with whom they were familiar.
Matthew specifically mentions the guards, whereas the others do not. The others may have simply written under the assumption that their audience would know that the guards were present or simply would not care about a detail that is certainly rendered minor in comparison to the resurrection. In either case, such a detail does not a contradiction make.
Where the stories seem to diverge is in the descriptions of the angel/angels. Part of what I enjoy when reading the gospels is the fact that each has access to very similar sources, but each reports the stories with different details. For example, though Luke almost certainly had access to Mark and reiterated Mark’s descriptions throughout, he reports as fact that two angels were present at the tomb whereas Mark reports only one. Why? The most plausible explanation is that Luke heard and believed reports that two angels were present. Hence, we can conclude that he was earnest in his attempts to relay the story of Jesus. It would be much easier to simply copy Mark’s account.
Is one account wrong? Adherents to the idea of a divinely-inspired scripture would likely point out that Matthew and Mark wrote of one angel who spoke, but did not say that only one was present. Others have hypothesized that the visitors to the tomb may have come at different times. For our purposes, it’s easier to acknowledge the possibility of discrepancies in the texts, since such discrepancies simply would not detract from the story. Certainly the presence of one or two angels is a minor detail in comparison to the major detail of the resurrection.
In the end, the possible discrepancies are so minor and so few that the three synoptic gospels yield a very clear picture of Jesus. Luke is explicit that his sources are second only to Christ Himself and Matthew and Mark corroborate fully Luke’s description of Jesus. The variances in style and details are such that collusion is unlikely. Yes, Matthew and Luke incorporate a large bit of Mark’s gospel into their own works, but each adds a great deal to his own gospel that cannot be attributed to Mark. We’re left with three different sources that tell the same story.
FINAL THOUGHT
I want to reiterate the point that the gospel authors had absolutely nothing to gain by concocting a story of the Christ. Further, the gospels were written years after the death of Christ. The church had already begun. The leaders were already established. From the preservation and spread of the gospels themselves, we can surmise that the early church supported the teachings documented by the synoptic gospel authors. This support should not be taken lightly. If indeed there were multitudinous eyewitnesses as the New Testament describes (and the population of the early church seems to corroborate), written accounts contrary to the actual teachings of the disciples would almost certainly die out as quickly as they were composed. The works that were circulated and mass-produced into the second and third centuries were evidently widely considered to be truthful accounts of Christ. One can still debate whether the ignorant hoards were corrupted by the “false teachings” of the disciples, but I think it is fair to say that the synoptic gospels paint a very clear picture of what the early Christians truly believed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
